Argorant

List mailboxes

argorant_list_inboxes

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the account's sending mailboxes a page at a time, ordered by address, with each one's status, daily limit, warm-up and tags; the first page also counts them by status, domain and tag. Use it to find mailboxes for argorant_set_campaign_senders or argorant_update_inboxes and to check their health; for one campaign's mailboxes use argorant_list_campaign_senders. sendable means signed in, healthy and switched on, so it sends. warming is a new mailbox in its first 24 hours that becomes sendable by itself at ready_at. not_connected is past its first 24 hours but not signed in, and sends again once it is signed in on the Mailboxes page. needs_attention is signed in but stopped by something that attention names, and paused is switched off. Warm-up is a separate setting and does not change the status. It shows no passwords. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#mailboxes

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "argorant_list_inboxes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Text to find in the mailbox address or name.
`tag`	No	Mailboxes that carry this tag (several separated by commas: all of them).
`limit`	No	Mailboxes per page, up to 500 (default 50).
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from the page before.
`domain`	No	One domain, or several separated by commas.
`status`	No	sendable, warming, not_connected, needs_attention or paused; several separated by commas.
`workspace`	No	For team accounts only, ours (default), all, or a workspace number.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations it explains status semantics (sendable, warming, not_connected, needs_attention, paused), that warm-up is a separate setting that does not change status, that the first page aggregates counts, and that no passwords are returned. This is substantive behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and usage routing are front-loaded, then status definitions follow in a compact sequence. It is dense but each sentence carries information; only the docs URL is optional padding for an agent that already has the description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only paged list with an output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, paging, first-page aggregates and the full status vocabulary. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description still adds meaning by defining the status values and their lifecycle (warming becomes sendable at ready_at) and by noting ordering and paging behavior. It does not add detail for q, tag, domain or workspace beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first clause states a specific verb and resource (list the account's sending mailboxes), plus scope details (paged, ordered by address) and returned fields (status, daily limit, warm-up, tags). It also names the sibling it is not (argorant_list_campaign_senders) for the per-campaign case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing: use it to find mailboxes for argorant_set_campaign_senders or argorant_update_inboxes and to check health, and use argorant_list_campaign_senders for one campaign's mailboxes. Both when-to-use and the alternative are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Argorant tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.